Awdhesh Yadav vs State Of U.P.Through Secretary ... on 15 November, 2022

[Cites 18, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Awdhesh Yadav vs State Of U.P.Through Secretary ... on 15 November, 2022

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Ankit Srivastva, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that in the computer list of this Court, the description of opposite party is wrongly shown as 'State of U.P. through Secretary (Secondary Education) U.P.' whereas in actual, the same is 'State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. Lucknow'.

Office is directed to rectify the same forthwith.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Awdhesh Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 175 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh.

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 25.11.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24352 of 2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the role assigned to the applicant is of firing upon the deceased Rajesh Kumar Yadav and as per the First Information Report it was stated that the applicant fired on the chest of the deceased which crossed his chest from the front. It is argued that in the present matter Ambika Prasad Yadav and Heeralal Yadav are the two eye witnesses of the incident, who have assigned the role of firing upon the deceased to co-accused Deepak Yadav and Sanjay Yadav. Although, the applicant is named by them along with other co-accused persons, namely, Deepak Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Gyanshankar Yadav, Dayaram Yadav, Rohit Yadv, Sitaram Yadav, Gabbar @ Ritik and Sanjay Yadav but the role assigned to him is of assault along with some other persons, by kicks and fists after which Deepak Yadav and Sanjay Yadav are alleged to have fired upon the deceased. It is argued while placing annexure-11 to the affidavit that co-accused Sanjay Yadav has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.02.2022. Further annexure-12 has been placed being the order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6011 of 2021; Rohit Yadav vs. State of U.P., 11856 of 2021; Daya Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 19648 of 2021; Sitaram Prajapati dated 23.07.2022 and it is argued that the said three accused persons have also been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide a common order dated 23.7.2021. Further co-accused Pradeep Yadav has also been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33667 of 2021 and the said order is also one of the order in annexure-12 and more particularly at page-86 of the paper book. It is argued that co-accused Gyan Shanker Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 13.01.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 36879 of 2021 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has been produced before this Court for perusal. It is argued that the orders granting bail to co-accused Gyan Shanker Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Rohit Yadav, Daya Ram Yadav and Sitaram Prajapati were subjected to challenge before the Apex Court in different special leave petitions which were connected together and the leading matter was Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2359 of 2022; Rakesh Yadav vs. The State of U.P. and another which vide order dated 30.09.2022 was disposed of but the orders, granting bail to the said co-accused persons, were not interfered with by the Apex Court. It is argued that as such, the case of the applicant is at par, if seen from the F.I.R., to the accused, who have been assigned the role of firing and even otherwise from the statement of eye witnesses Ambika Prasad Yadav and Hiralal Yadav except co-accused Deepak Yadav and Sanjay Yadav, who have been assigned the role of firing upon the deceased. It is argued that since the orders of co-accused have been affirmed and not interfered by the Apex court and the applicant stands at a better footing with that of other co-accused persons, hence bail may be granted to him on the ground of parity. It is further argued that even looking to the role of the applicant in the F.I.R. although role is assigned of firing but the same crossed the deceased after touching his chest only. His role as per the F.I.R. stands distinguishable from other co-accused persons, who were assigned specific role of firing which had proved fatal. The applicant is in jail since 01.12.2020.

Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Learned counsel for the first informant argued that there has been regular threat to the first informant and his witnesses from the side of the accused persons. The said threat was even brought to the notice of the Apex Court which has been considered in the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2359 of 2022. It is further argued that as of now as per his instructions received today, one F.I.R. has been lodged as Case Crime No. 358 of 2022 under Sections 504, 506, I.P.C. registered at Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh and as such threat is being regularly extended.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that as per the F.I.R., the role assigned to the applicant is of resorting to fire along with other co-accused persons and it is stated that his fire crossed from the front of the chest of the deceased. In the statement of alleged eye witnesses Ambika Prasad Yadav and Hiralal Yadav, the applicant and some unknown persons have been assigned the role of assault by kicks and fists after the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Deepak Yadav and Sanjay Yadav. Sanjay Yadav has been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.02.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4875 of 2022. The said order reads as under:-

"Heard Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, and learned AGA for the State.

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 175 of 2020 Police Station Rani Ki Sarai District Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 I.P.C. & Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on 31.03.2021.

The applicant is in jail since 03.12.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. as one of the principal offenders who shot at the deceased. The informant in the F.I.R. was an eye witness. The F.I.R. was lodged without unreasonable delay. The statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded immediately after the lodgement of the F.I.R. was consistent with the prosecution version contained in the F.I.R. The statements of the second and third eye witnesses were recorded after a delay of almost two weeks. The delay is without good cause and impeaches the credibility of the aforesaid statements. The aforesaid statements of the second and third eye witnesses materially resile from the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. and confirmed by the informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said statements are as an afterthought and attempt to absolve the principal offenders. Even as per the said statements (though denied as false), the applicant had not shot at any vital part of the body of the deceased which led to his death. The other co-accused namely Rohit Yadav and Pradeep Yadav who have been nominated as the principal offenders and had fired the fatal shots, have been enlarged on bail by this Court by orders dated 23.07.2021 and 11.01.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6011 of 2021 and 33667 of 2021 respectively. The case of the applicant stands on a better footing than the aforesaid co-accused. Apart from the instant case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA and Shri Rahul Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA further does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Sanjay Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2020 Police Station Rani Ki Sarai District Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 I.P.C. & Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court."

Co-accused Rohit Yadav, Daya Ram Yadav and Sitaram Yadav were also granted bail by a common order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6011 of 2021, 11856 of 2021 and 19648 of 2021. The said order reads as under:-

"List revised.

Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

Since these bail applications arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not committed the present offence. Applicants have no criminal history. Though applicants are named in the F.I.R. yet offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out against them. It is further submitted that only role of beating with kicks and fists has been assigned against the applicants. Referring to role assigned to applicant Daya Ram Yadav, it is also submitted that if prosecution case is taken into consideration against this applicant, then also there are contrary statements regarding role assigned to him. Firing said to have been opened by Daya Ram Yadav did not hit to anyone. It is also submitted that one witness Ambika Prasad Yadav, who claimed himself to be eye account witness, only assinged role of firing against Sanjay and Deepak. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel also referred to statement of informant recorded on second time and submitted that informant assigned role of firing against Deepak, Pradeep Yadav, Gyan Shanker Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav and Sanjay Yadav. Referring to aforesaid facts and the documents annexed with the bail application, it is further submitted that present applicants were implicated in this case on the basis of false facts and only to this reason contradictions occurred in their statements on the point of assignment of role to the applicants. Referring to Post Mortem Report it is further submitted that since role of firing is attributed to co-accused, applicants are in jail since 1.12.2020/17.12.2020) having no criminal history, they are entitled for bail. It is further submitted that in case applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.

Let the applicants Rohit Yadav, Daya Ram Yadav and Sita Ram Prajapati involved in Case Crime No. 175 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District - Azamgarh be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

3. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

5. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

Further co-accused Pradeep Yadav also has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33667 of 2021. The said order reads as under:-

"Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri B.K. Tripathi and Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.175 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Rani Ki Sarai, District-Azamgarh is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that informant is one Rakesh Kumar who has lodged the FIR on 29.11.2020 at around 4:46 in the morning for the incident said to have taken place on 28.11.2020 at eight in the night against nine named accused persons including the applicant. In the FIR, graphic description was made of the incident by the informant in which role of firing was attributed to Dipak Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Gyan Shankar Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav and Daya Ram Yadav. It has been clearly mentioned in the FIR that the fire arm given by the applicant has caused injuries over the left hand(non-vital part of the body). Thereafter during investigation, the police has recorded the statement of other eye witnesses in which Daya Ram Yadav and Pradeep were replaced by Dipak and Sanjay. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that Daya Ram was already enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court having Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11856 of 2020 dated 23.07.2021. It is further contended that case of the applicant stands on exact footing with Daya Ram. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.12.2020.

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that six persons have brutally assaulted by the fire arm but fact remains that in the narration of stories, the informant himself has given vivid description that the injuries of gun shot given by Pradeep was on the non-vital part of the body. but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and applying the principal of parity, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

Let the applicant, Pradeep Yadav, who is involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

Lastly co-accused Gyan Shanker Yadav was granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2022 which reads as under:-

"Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State through Video Conferencing and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Gyan Shanker Yadav in Case Crime No. 175 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Rani Ki Sarai, District- Azamgarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail during trial.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive. A general and omnibus role of indiscriminate firing has been assigned to the applicant and other named accused persons. It is next contended that similarly placed co-accused Pradeep Yadav and Daya Ram Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 11.01.2022 and 23.07.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33667 of 2021 and 11856 of 2021, respectively. The criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in Para 26 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. Thus, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 03.12.2020, deserves to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and evidence available on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let applicant- Gyan Shanker Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

3. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

The party may file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by pairokar of the applicant.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

The Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2359 of 2022; Rakesh Yadav vs. The State of U.P. and another has passed the following order on 30.09.2022:-

"Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondents including the learned counsel for the States.

Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this court, an application is filed bringing on record certain instnces which are said to have taken place after the bail was granted to the contesting respondents herein. Though the reference is made to the F.I.R., the police have taken action in that regard. However, when the same is juxtaposed with the nature of consideration that has arisen before the High Court, in a matter of the present nature we see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court to grant the bail at this stage.

However, having taken note of the application filed by the State we direct the jurisdictional Superintendent of police to take note of the situation and take proper steps to protect the interest of the petitioner as well as the witnesses to depose in the case and in the process if the law enforcing authorities find anything amiss or that contesting respondents are violating bail conditions, they shall file appropriate applications before the Court which granted bail seeking cancellation.

With the above observations, these petitions stand disposed of.

Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of."

Looking to the argument, facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the role assigned to the applicant, the orders of co-accused passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and the order of the Apex Court, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant- Awdhesh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

(vii) If the applicant indulges in violating any of the condition of the bail order, appropriate application may be filed for cancellation of his bail.

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 15.11.2022/E. Court Shiraz

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court